FRANK  DUVENECK 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 
in  2016 


https://archive.org/details/frankduveneck00heer_0 


FRANK  DUVENECK 

From  the  Portrait  by  Joseph  DeCamp 


FRANK  DUVENECK 


BY 

NORBERT  HEERMANN 


WITH  ILLUSTRATIONS 


BOSTON  AND  NEW  YORK 

HOUGHTON  MIFFLIN  COMPANY 

presg  Cambri&oe 

1918 


COPYRIGHT,  1918,  BY  NORBERT  HEERMANN 
ALL  RIGHTS  RESERVED 


Published  October  iqi8 


PREFACE 


In  a well-known  dictionary  of  American  artists 
in  which  considerable  space  is  devoted  to  al- 
most all  of  our  artists,  we  find  under  Frank 
Duveneck’s  name  just  a small  paragraph,  and 
under  that  the  editor’s  remark  :“No  answer  to 
circular.”  This  is  characteristic  of  Duveneck. 
Since  it  was  not  a very  easy  matter  to  get  the 
chronology  of  the  works  and  most  interesting 
facts  in  connection  with  them  correctly,  I am 
especially  indebted  to  those  who  have  aided  me 
in  the  preparation  of  this  little  work,  to  Mrs. 
William  B.  Pratt,  Mr.  Clement  Barnhorn,  and 
Mr.  Oliver  Dennett  Grover.  For  permission  to 
make  use  of  photographs  of  their  paintings  by 
Duveneck  I am  grateful  to  the  Cincinnati  Mu- 
seum, the  Boston  Museum  of  Fine  Arts,  the 
Pennsylvania  Academy  of  Fine  Arts,  the  Chi- 


vi  PREFACE 

cago  Art  Institute,  the  Queen  City  Club  of 
Cincinnati,  and  the  Boston  Tavern  Club,  and 
to  Mrs.  Henry  C.  Angell  and  Mr.  M.  A. 
De Wolfe  Kowe,  of  Boston. 


ILLUSTRATIONS 


Frank  Duveneck Frontispiece 

From  the  Portrait  by  Joseph  DeCamp,  owned  by  the  Cin- 
cinnati Museum 

Joseph  DeCamp’s  portrait  of  Duveneck  strongly  indicates  his  physical 
and  mental  make-up  and  harmonizes  very  well  with  Mrs.  Pennell’s  de- 
scription (page  85).  The  expression  of  his  eyes  and  hands  in  the  canvas, 
suggesting  a quietude  that  to  the  outsider  might  mean  almost  anything, 
yet  to  those  that  know  him  conveys  the  feeling  of  latent  power  and  re- 
minds one  that  these  blue  eyes  of  his  are  used  to  look  at  things  firmly 
and  to  take  from  them  a clear-cut  summary  of  what  is  there.  The  por- 
trait is  a double  tribute  of  DeCamp  to  his  teacher.  It  was  a work  of 
love,  time  having  been  taken  from  commissions  to  complete  it  for  a gift 
to  Cincinnati,  where  DeCamp  was  born  and  received  his  early  art  train- 
ing. It  also  carries  the  sign  of  the  latter’s  training  under  Duveneck.  A 
fine  piece  of  characterization ; the  person  summed  it  up  who  said,  “ Cut 
the  hand  on  the  left  out  and  show  it  to  anybody  that  knows  Duveneck 
and  he  will  tell  you  whose  hand  it  is.” 

The  Old  Schoolmaster 4 

Owned  by  the  Boston  Museum  of  Fine  Arts,  now  hung 
in  the  house  of  its  former  owner,  Mrs.  Henry  C.  Angell, 


Boston 

Whistling  Boy 8 

Owned  by  the  Cincinnati  Museum 

Woman  with  a Fan 12 

Owned  by  Mr.  M.  A.  DeWolfe  Howe,  Boston 

Young  Man  with  Ruff 16 

Owned  by  the  Cincinnati  Museum 


Portrait  of  Professor  Ludwig  Loefftz  ....  20 

Owned  by  the  Cincinnati  Museum 


viii  FRANK  DUVENECK 

Unfinished  Portrait  Study 24 

Owned  by  the  Cincinnati  Museum 

Portrait  of  Mr.  William  Adams 28 

Owned  by  the  Cincinnati  Museum 

Turkish  Page  32 

Owned  by  the  Pennsylvania  Academy  of  Fine  Arts 

Woman  with  Forget-Me-Nots 36 

Owned  by  the  Cincinnati  Museum 

Sketch  of  a Turk 40 

Owned  by  the  Tavern  Club,  Boston 

Portrait  of  J.  Frank  Currier 44 

Owned  by  the  Art  Institute,  Chicago 

Red-Haired  Man  with  Ruff 48 

Owned  by  the  Cincinnati  Museum 

The  Cobbler’s  Apprentice 52 

Owned  by  Mr.  Charles  P.  Taft 

Portrait  of  John  W.  Alexander 56 

Owned  by  the  Cincinnati  Museum 

Well  and  Water-Tank,  Italian  Villa  ....  60 

Owned  by  the  Cincinnati  Museum 

Old  Town  Brook,  Polling,  Bavaria 60 

Owned  by  the  Cincinnati  Museum 

Florentine  Flower  Girl 64 

Owned  by  the  Cincinnati  Museum 

Siesta 68 

Owned  by  the  Queen  City  Club,  Cincinnati 

Riva  degli  Schiavoni,  Venice.  — Etching  ...  72 


FRANK  DUVENECK 


IX 


The  Rialto,  Venice.  — Etching 76 

Memorial  to  Elizabeth  Boott  Duveneck. — Sculpture.  80 
Bronze  in  the  “ Allori  ” Cemetery,  Florence 

Facsimile  of  the  Letter  adopted  first  by  the  Foreign 
Members  of  the  Jury  for  the  Panama-Pacific  In- 
ternational Exposition  and  later  endorsed  by  the 
Entire  American  Jury 82 


FRANK  DUVENECK 


i 

“ After  all’s  said,  Frank  Duveneck  is  the 
greatest  talent  of  the  brush  of  this  generation.” 
These  are  the  words  which  John  Singer  Sar- 
gent spoke  at  a dinner  given  in  London  in  the 
early  nineties,  in  a discussion  of  the  merits  of 
such  eminent  men  as  Carolus  Duran  and  others. 
This  judgment,  deliberately  spoken  by  a man 
whom  artists  and  laymen  alike  have  come  to 
regard  as  the  most  technically  brilliant  of 
painters,  would  not  now,  any  more  than  it  did 
then,  arouse  contradiction  in  a company  of 
artists.  Yet  to  the  general  public  it  would  come 
with  a shock  of  surprise.  This  is  in  part  be- 
cause Duveneck’s  work  is  not  accessible  to  the 
general  public.  Another  reason  lies  in  the  fact 
that  the  greatness  of  Duveneck’s  art  is  best  un- 
derstood by  the  student  of  painting.  His  style, 


2 


FRANK  DUVENECK 


simple  and  direct,  is  “sans  phrase,” — without 
technical  tricks  for  effect,  without  persuasive 
story  subjects,  without  even  so  much  self-con- 
sciousness as  is  implied  in  the  word  “senti- 
ment.” Of  literary  association  there  is  none, 
of  doctrine  or  dogma  there  is  none.  The  world 
of  this  painter  is  not  history,  not  imagination, 
not  psychological  analysis,  not  ethics;  those 
fields  which  our  public  loves  to  explore.  His 
compelling  interest  is  in  the  normal  aspect  of 
man  and  nature,  the  subjects  he  chooses  are 
everyday  types ; he  conceives  them  in  an  un- 
pretentious spirit,  but  transmits  them  as  en- 
dowed with  quiet  power.  There  is  in  his  work 
a certain  finality  of  grasp  with  a dignity,  a calm, 
which  to  the  connoisseur  is  akin  to  the  serenity 
of  the  Greek,  while  to  the  multitude  it  may  ap- 
pear actually  commonplace. 

That  a man  of  this  type  should  later  have 
been  almost  lost  sight  of,  except  by  his  intimate 
circle  of  artist  friends,  is  not  altogether  sur- 
prising in  this  country  and  at  a time  like  the 


THE  OLD  SCHOOLMASTER 
1871 


This  portrait,  with  the  keen  grasp  of  the  expressive  features  of  this 
stern,  old-fashioned  figure,  was  painted  in  Duveneck’s  second  year  in 
Munich  — an  astonishing  achievement. 


THE  OLD  SCHOOLMASTER 
1871 


FRANK  DUVENECK 


5 


present,  when  change  swiftly  follows  change 
and  is  greeted  with  a clamor  that  distracts  at- 
tention from  earlier  achievement. 

We  owe  it  to  the  Duveneck  Gallery  at  the 
Panama  Pacific  International  Exposition  that 
the  full  power  of  this  personality  has  been  once 
more  thrown  into  full  relief;  and  the  action 
of  the  jury  in  awarding  him  a special  medal, 
the  highest  in  its  power  to  bestow,  is  a timely 
reminder  of  the  truly  classic  standard  of  his 
work  and  of  its  importance  in  the  development 
of  our  national  school. 

To  appreciate  the  effect  of  his  painting,  when 
it  was  first  exhibited  over  forty  years  ago,  we 
must  remember  the  lack  of  national  character 
in  the  American  art  of  that  day.  The  country 
was  flooded  with  foreign  paintings  which  in- 
spired our  painters  to  either  the  sentimental 
story  picture  of  Diisseldorf  lineage,  or  the  dry 
reflection  of  other  lifeless  works.  Only  here 
and  there  the  flicker  of  independent  thought 


6 


FRANK  DUVENECK 


appeared.  Inness,  the  father  of  the  naturalistic 
movement  in  American  landscape,  who  had 
just  returned  from  Italy,  was  beginning  to  feel 
his  way  towards  the  splendor  of  his  later  work. 
Homer  Martin  was  in  more  or  less  an  experi- 
mental stage,  and  so  was  Alexander  H.  Wyant. 
John  La  Farge’s  poetic  genius  was  getting 
ready  to  express  itself  with  full  mastery  for  the 
first  time  in  his  mural  decoration  in  Trinity 
Church,  Boston  (1876),  and  George  Fuller’s  no- 
ble art  was  yet  hidden  from  the  public,  his  inti- 
mate friends  alone  knowing  that  he  painted  in 
the  intervals  of  his  farm  work  at  Deerfield,  Mass- 
achusetts. William  Morris  Hunt  was  actually 
the  only  widely  recognized  artistic  personage 
at  the  time.  He  had  opened  a studio  in  Boston 
in  1862.  It  proved  successful,  and  his  lectures 
on  art,  notably  the  art  of  his  great  inspiration 
Millet,  also  of  Delacroix  and  Daumier,  pre- 
pared in  that  city  the  most  open-minded  audi- 
ence which  existed  in  the  country. 

Before  this  audience,  in  1875,  came  Frank 


WHISTLING  BOY 
1872 


The  young  Duveneck’s  complete  realization  of  technique,  clearness 
of  vision,  and  powerful  aim  for  what  is  vital  in  portraiture.  Every- 
thing here  fairly  palpitates  with  life. 


WHISTLING  BOY 
1872 


FRANK  DUVENECK  9 

Duveneck  with  his  little  one-man  show  of  five 
canvases,  a young  fellow  of  twenty-seven 
years  with  but  a three  years’  schooling  in 
Munich  behind  him.  The  canvases  he  showed 
were  “The  Woman  with  a Fan,”  “The  Old 
Schoolmaster,”  “ Portrait  of  William  Adams,” 
“ Portrait  of  Professor  Loefftz,”  and  the 
“ Whistling  Boy.”  Here  at  last  was  a person- 
ality that  spoke  a definite,  a beautifully  and 
powerfully  definite  language.  Duveneck’s  ex- 
hibition proved  an  immediate  success.  The 
pictures  were  acclaimed  by  Hunt  and  many 
others  and  by  the  whole  press.  The  opening 
of  a new  era  in  American  art  was  proclaimed. 
In  1877,  the  National  Academy  Exhibition  in 
New  York,  including  a group  of  canvases  by 
the  American  painters  from  the  Munich  School, 
became  a fresh  landmark,  and  with  the  found- 
ing in  the  following  year  of  “ The  Society  of 
American  Artists  ” and  their  subsequent  exhi- 
bition at  the  Kurtz  Gallery  in  New  York  in 
1878,  the  new  era  in  American  Art  was  fairly 


10 


FRANK  DUVENECK 


launched.  The  younger  men  among  the  Amer- 
ican painters  had  been  brought  into  contact 
with  a vital  influence  from  outside  and  had 
been  taught  to  respect  their  own  reaction  to 
it.  As  we  have  seen,  this  first  impulse  came 
by  way  of  Munich;  later  Paris  became  the 
art  school  of  the  world.  All  this  now  is  too 
well  known  to  be  dwelt  upon. 

In  speaking  of  Duveneck  I would  emphasize 
the  powerful  effect  of  his  own  work  at  the  out- 
set of  our  era.  What  he  accomplished  after 
that,  while  not  less  surely,  was  more  quietly 
done.  His  class  in  Florence,  then  known  as 
the  “Duveneck  Boys,”  his  Italian  paintings, 
his  series  of  Venetian  and  Florentine  etchings, 
his  work  as  a sculptor,  decorator,  and  as  ad- 
viser has  been  of  inestimable  value,  the  story 
of  his  life  affording  a natural  bridge  by  which 
to  pass  from  our  early  period  to  the  present 
day. 


WOMAN  WITH  A FAN 

1873 


Like  the  romance  of  a long-forgotten  day  this  lady  emerges  from 
the  dark  with  her  fan,  her  graceful  feathery  hat,  her  quaint  ruche,  silk 
dress,  and  black  shawl.  Asked  once  in  reference  to  the  superb  paint- 
ing of  her  eyes,  the  depth  of  them,  Duveneck  said:  “Yes,  in  those 
days  I had  eyes  like  a hawk  and  yet  I painted  two  days  on  that  one  eye 
in  the  light.” 


WOMAN  WITH  A FAN 

1873 


II 


Frank  Duveneck  was  born  in  1848  in  Coving- 
ton, Kentucky,  across  the  Ohio  River  from 
Cincinnati.  Among  his  early  recollections  are 
a variety  of  interesting  incidents  of  the  Civil 
War.  Naturally,  living  on  the  border-line 
of  North  and  South,  he  felt  the  influence  of 
the  conflict  through  contact  with  the  sick 
and  wounded;  also  with  negro  refugees,  half 
starved,  helpless,  and  often  not  too  hospitably 
received.  At  this  time  the  Benedictine  Friars 
were  making  altars  for  Catholic  churches  in 
Covington,  and  they  employed  Duveneck,  still 
a mere  boy,  in  his  first  artistic  work.  He  painted, 
modeled,  carved,  decorated,  finding  a great 
deal  of  pleasure  in  the  variety  of  his  work. 
His  ability  soon  attracted  the  attention  of  a 
local  painter  named  Schmidt,  and  later,  at  the 
age  of  eighteen,  of  a church  decorator  of  Ger- 
man birth  and  training  named  Lamprecht, 


FRANK  DUVENECK 


14 

who  coming  just  then  to  Cincinnati  accepted 
him  as  an  assistant.  The  varied  work  which 
followed  proved  of  importance  in  Duveneck’s 
development.  He  learned  his  craft  in  the  next 
few  years,  the  rough  craft  of  painting  on  large 
surfaces.  He  decorated  churches  in  many  dif- 
ferent places,  even  as  far  away  as  Canada. 
Realizing  more  and  more  his  artistic  ambition 
and  being  strongly  advised  by  his  fellow  dec- 
orators to  study  abroad,  he  managed  to  get  to 
Munich,  which  had  at  this  time  taken  the 
place  of  Diisseldorf  as  the  leading  art  school 
in  Germany,  and  entered  the  Royal  Academy. 
This  was  in  1870.  After  working  for  three 
months  in  the  Antique  Class,  Duveneck  was 
admitted,  without  any  of  the  usual  preparatory 
life  drawings,  to  the  painting  class  of  Wilhelm 
Dietz,  one  of  the  radicals  among  the  faculty 
who  had  become  a professor  at  the  Academy 
the  same  year  that  Duveneck  entered.  Among 
his  classmates  at  this  time  were  two  who 
afterwards  became  famous;  one  of  them  being 


YOUNG  MAN  WITH  RUFF 
1873 


Another  example  of  the  artist’s  intensely  vital  construction  of  the 
head  with  direct  brush  drawing. 


YOUNG  MAN  WITH  RUFF 

1873 


FRANK  DUVENECK 


17 

Ludwig  Loefftz,  later  a professor  and  after 
that  Director  of  the  Munich  Academy;  and  the 
other,  Wilhelm  Triibner,  who  ranks  among 
the  strongest  modern  German  painters. 

It  is  interesting  to  linger  over  the  condition 
of  the  art  world  of  Munich  at  the  time  young 
Duveneck  stepped  into  it.  It  was  a period  of 
transitions.  Within  a generation  the  sound 
draughtsmanship,  painstakingly  built  up  on 
German  soil  by  schooling  received  in  France, 
had  been  followed  by  a wave  of  enthusiasm 
for  color  and  now  again  had  received  a fresh 
impetus  from  Paris.  At  that  time  in  the  French 
capital,  Delacroix  and  Ingres,  the  arch-roman- 
ticist and  arch-classicist,  still  held  their  own. 
Besides  these  there  were  masters  such  as  those 
glorifying  the  Napoleonic  legend,  Horace  Ver- 
net  and  Meissonier;  the  discoverers  of  the 
Orient  for  art,  Decamps,  Marilhat,  Fromen- 
tin ; the  genre  painters  of  all  kinds ; together 
with  the  elegant  portrayers  of  feminine  beauty, 
Cabanel,  Baudry ; the  serious  stylists,  like 


18  FRANK  DUVENECK 

Chasseriau,  Flandrin,  and  Chenavard,  and  the 
excellent  landscape  painters.  And  finally  there 
were  the  revolutionary  realists  with  Courbet 
at  their  head.  In  place  apart  stood  Corot  and 
Millet,  whose  art  though  closely  associated 
with  the  Barbizon  School  is  yet  greater. 

Something  of  all  these  was  reflected  in  Mu- 
nich in  the  sixties,  and  what  is  for  us  most  in- 
teresting is  the  fact  that  two  men  there  at  least 
were  following  a course  parallel  to  that  of 
Courbet.  These  men  were  Wilhelm  Leibl, 
whose  influence  in  Munich  was  very  strong 
even  then,  and  Wilhelm  von  Dietz,  the  young 
instructor  into  whose  hands  Duveneck  fell. 
Their  art,  resisting  the  artificialities  of  the 
older  painters,  Piloty  and  Makart,  had  been 
inspired  by  an  intense  study  of  nature  and  of 
the  Dutch  masters  in  the  old  Pinakothek,  and 
had,  only  the  year  before  Duveneck’s  coming, 
received  a fresh  impulse  through  a great  exhi- 
bition of  French  art  in  which  Courbet  was 
represented  by  a roomful  of  paintings.  Nature, 


PORTRAIT  OF  PROFESSOR  LUDWIG 
LOEFFTZ 

1873 


One  of  the  artist’s  most  beautiful  works,  a portrait  all  painters  love 
for  its  dignity  and  completeness. 


PORTRAIT  OF  PROFESSOR  LUDWIG  LOEFFTZ 

i873 


FRANK  DUVENECK 


21 


pure  and  simple,  was  what  interested  them,  — 
“Un  coin  de  la  nature  vu  a travers  un  tem- 
perament,” was  the  watchword  coined  for 
/ 

them  by  Emile  Zola,  the  spokesman  of  the 
new  movement. 

It  was  among  such  varied  influences  that 
Duveneck  had  placed  himself  and,  as  was  in- 
evitable with  his  temperament,  it  was  with 
the  naturalists  that  he  instantly  aligned  him- 
self. Theirs  was  the  spirit  in  which  Duveneck 
approached  his  work. 

Given  immediately  the  close  contact  with  a 
mood  and  method  so  absolutely  suited  to  him, 
and  remembering  also  the  technical  skill  which 
he  had  already  gained,  especially  through  his 
free  handling  of  paint  in  the  work  of  church 
decoration  in  America,  we  can  more  easily  un- 
derstand the  rapid  progress  of  this  newcomer 
in  the  stimulating  art  world  of  Munich,  — 
this  blond,  vigorous,  and  single-hearted  young 
giant  with  the  “ eye  like  a hawk,”  fresh  from 
a new  world  and  conscious  of  his  own  power. 


22 


FRANK  DUVENECK 


During  his  first  year  in  Munich,  Duveneck 
took  most  of  the  prizes  of  the  Academy,  from 
antique  drawing  to  composition,  a progress 
which  was  looked  upon  as  nothing  short  of 
phenomenal.  The  admirable  study  of  a Cir- 
cassian in  the  Boston  Museum  of  Fine  Arts 
belongs  to  that  year.  At  that  time  competitive 
compositions  were  made,  the  prize-winners 
were  granted  the  use  of  a studio,  the  expenses 
for  models  to  complete  the  prize  competition 
usually  being  paid  in  addition.  Duveneck  won 
this  prize  in  1872.  After  establishing  himself  in 
the  newly  won  studio  he  did  not,  and  indeed 
soon  proved  that  he  did  not  have  to,  return  to 
Dietz’s  class,  for  to  this  time  belongs  that  series 
of  canvases  of  which  we  need  recall  only  one, 
the  “Whistling  Boy.”  In  this  picture  are  fully 
evident  the  qualities  which  startled  and  quickly 
attracted  the  other  painters  and  students  to  him. 
Foremost  among  these  is  the  expressive  use 
of  the  paint  itself,  an  astonishing  virtuosity  of 
brushwork  closely  related  to  Franz  Hals,  in 


UNFINISHED  PORTRAIT  STUDY 

1873 


Note  the  vitality  of  brush  expression  in  large  planes,  just  preced- 
ing the  development  of  detail  within  the  planes. 


UNFINISHED  PORTRAIT  STUDY 
1873 


FRANK  DUVENECK  25 

which  the  daring  and  yet  perfectly  controlled 
hand  defines  planes,  textures,  and  color  with  an 
unhesitating  brush  — loaded  with  paint.  Even 
to  the  amateur  this  method  makes  an  appeal, 
its  chief  merit  being  liveliness  and  force  with 
rich,  vibrant  color.  Later,  in  the  portrait  of 
the  “Woman  with  Forget-Me-Nots,”  which  is 
dated  1876,  we  feel  the  distinct  ripening  in  pic- 
torial insight.  The  fact  that  Duveneck  at  that 
time  used  to  take  his  pictures  to  the  Pinakothek 
and  set  them  beside  the  old  masters,  the  Dutch 
and  Flemish  being  his  favorite  ones,  makes  us 
understand  that  as  the  “Whistling  Boy  ” was 
Duveneck  pure  and  simple,  the  “Woman  with 
Forget-Me-Nots  ” is  a development,  through 
an  inspiration  that  comes  straight  from  the 
Netherlands,  the  hands  being  very  suggestive 
of  Rubens.  Duveneck  used  a restricted  palette 
in  those  days,  composed  chiefly  of  plain  earth 
colors.  A student  who  once  asked  some  one 
who  knew  Duveneck  in  Munich,  what  kind  of 
brushes  and  colors  the  latter  then  used,  received 


25 


FRANK  DUVENECK 


the  answer : “ Oh,  generally  somebody  else’s.” 
In  later  years  Duveneck  came  under  the  spell 
of  the  French  painters.  For  a time  he  became 
vitally  interested  in  their  technique,  so  without 
much  ado  he  set  himself  to  study  their  style  for 
several  years,  many  of  his  enthusiasts  lament- 
ing this  change.  There  is  a large  portrait  of  his 
wife  in  the  Cincinnati  Museum  which  reveals 
strikingly  this  departure ; it  is  a gracefully  dis- 
tinguished work. 


PORTRAIT  OF  MR.  WILLIAM  ADAMS 
1874 


Note  the  stately  placing  of  the  figure  on  the  canvas,  the  directness 
of  expression  with  the  brush,  the  subtle  values  in  solid  painting. 


PORTRAIT  OF  MR.  WILLIAM  ADAMS 
1874 


Ill 


Toward  the  end  of  the  year  1873,  the  year  in 
which  the  cholera  broke  out  in  Munich,  Du- 
veneck  returned  to  America.  He  went  at  once 
to  Chicago  on  a commission  in  connection  with 
a church  decoration.  Not  v/ishing  to  carry  too 
much,  he  traveled  with  little  luggage  and  no 
painting  material,  expecting  to  buy  what  he 
needed  there.  Upon  arrivingin  Chicago  he  soon 
found  to  his  surprise  that  such  things  as  artist 
materials  were  unobtainable  goods  at  that  time, 
in  a town  thatto-day  can  boast  of  having  at  least 
three  thousand  artists  and  art  students.  So  he 
was  obliged  to  remain  idle  until  the  material 
could  be  sent  for.  Upon  his  return  to  Cincin- 
nati he  was  occupied  there  with  several  por- 
trait orders,  but  an  exhibition  of  a group  of  his 
portraits  from  Munich  attracted  little  or  no 
public  attention,  which  is  perhaps  not  surpris- 
ing in  the  state  of  connoisseurship  then  existing 


3o 


FRANK  DUVENECK 


Then  came  the  year  1875,  in  which  his  one- 
man  show  in  Boston  proved  more  than  a suc- 
cess, coming  near  a sensation.  Besides  receiv- 
ing excellent  criticisms,  the  whole  collection 
was  sold.  Nobody  was  more  amazed  at  this 
success  than  Duveneck  himself.  He  has  always 
attributed  his  favorable  reception  to  William 
Morris  Hunt’s  lectures  on  art,  which  together 
with  Hunt’s  own  work  had  cleared  the  way. 
Leibl,  whose  work  in  Germany  at  that  time  was 
very  similar  to  Duveneck’s,  was  still  absolutely 
misunderstood  there  by  both  press  and  public; 
in  fact,  he  had  been  obliged  to  leave  Munich  for 
the  country  in  1872,  largely  because  of  the  lack 
of  funds.  If  Duveneck  had  been  intent  on  busi- 
ness he  would  have  accepted  the  very  flattering 
inducements  offered  him  to  remain  in  Boston. 
However  the  call  of  the  artist  life  in  Munich 
was  too  strong  to  be  resisted,  so  he  declined 
them  and  returned  to  Munich  the  same  year, 
where  he  worked  until  1877.  In  company  with 
his  friend  William  M.  Chase,  Duveneck  then 


TURKISH  PAGE 
1876 


The  significance  of  this  handsome  arrangement  becomes  especially 
evident  when  we  think  that  it  was  painted  as  early  as  1876  and  first 
exhibited  the  following  year.  In  company  with  the  work  of  other 
young  Americans,  “ The  Turkish  Page  ” constituted  a direct  chal- 
lenge to  the  prevailing  conventional  spirit  of  the  National  Academy. 
With  the  exception  of  Duveneck’s  mural  paintings,  this  canvas  must 
be  regarded  as  his  most  completely  carried  out  composition. 


TURKISH  PAGE 
1876 


FRANK  DUVENECK  33 

went  to  Venice,  where  the  two  experienced  al- 
ternations of  hardship  and  prosperity,  most  of 
the  time  managing  to  exist  on  practically  noth- 
ing and  enj  oying  themselves  doing  it.  One  year 
later,  1878,  Duveneck  was  back  in  Munich. 
Chase  returned  to  America  and  connected  him- 
self with  the  Art  Students’  League  which  had 
just  been  formed,  teaching  being  then  the  only 
professional  work  which  he  found  profitable. 

It  was  the  year  before,  as  I have  already  said, 
in  the  Spring  exhibition  of  the  National  Acad- 
emy of  Design  in  New  York,  that  the  group  of 
young  Americans  had  exhibited  for  the  first 
time  together,  works  which,  made  in  Munich 
and  Paris,  were  destined  to  produce  the  most 
profound  and  far-reaching  results  in  America’s 
art  development.  The  most  notable  among  the 
exhibitors  were  Duveneck,  Chase,  Inness,  and 
Shirlaw.  The  conservative  element  of  the 
Academy,  which  had  been  having  things  all  its 
own  way  up  to  that  time,  became  extremely 
agitated  over  the  success  of  these  newcomers 


FRANK  DUVENECK 


34 

from  abroad,  and  especially  over  the  fact  that 
the  canvases  of  these  men  were  given  such  ex- 
cellent places.  At  once  a meeting  was  called 
and  a resolution  passed,  that  every  Academi- 
cian should  henceforth  have  reserved  for  his 
work  eight  feet  of  space  on  the  line.  While 
this  extreme  measure  was  recalled  later,  it 
certainly  showed  plainly  the  hostile  attitude 
towards  these  young  painters,  all  of  whom  we 
regard  to-day  as  more  or  less  important  fac- 
tors in  the  development  of  our  national  art. 
Incidentally  the  National  Academy’s  action 
resulted  in  the  forming  of  the  “Society  of 
American  Artists,”  which  disbanded  only  a 
few  years  ago. 

One  of  the  sensations  of  this  Academy  Ex- 
hibition proved  to  be  Duveneck’s  “Turkish 
Page,”  now  in  the  Pennsylvania  Academy  of 
Fine  Arts.  The  absolute  mastery  of  all  tech- 
nical difficulties,  the  justness  of  his  tonal  val- 
ues, and  the  solidity  of  his  — I might  say,  wet 
into  wet  — straightforward  painting,  were  all 


WOMAN  WITH  FORGET-ME-NOTS 
1876 


Almost  devotional  in  spirit,  the  dignity  of  this  portrait  takes  us  back 
to  the  days  of  the  great  Dutch  painters.  Unconsciously  almost  we 
feel  Rembrandt,  Rubens,  and  Franz  Hals.  She  is  of  their  company. 


WOMAN  WITH  FORGET-ME-NOTS 
1876 


FRANK  DUVENECK 


37 

things  which  had  never  been  seen  before  quite 
as  in  this  canvas.  The  manner  in  which  the 
various  textures  of  this  ambitious  arrangement 
are  presented  is  very  handsome,  indeed.  Be- 
sides the  modeling  and  fine  flesh  quality  of 
the  boy,  there  are  the  various  beautifully  ren- 
dered accessories,  like  the  drapery  in  the  back 
and  the  leopard  skin  in  the  foreground,  the 
metallic  quality  of  the  brass  bowl  and  vase, 
and  finally  the  beauty  of  the  grapes  and  plum- 
age of  the  white  cockatoo  with  wings  out- 
stretched and  crest  raised.  Chase  painted  the 
same  arrangement  with  Duveneck,  only  on  a 
much  smaller  canvas;  in  fact,  the  pictures 
were  painted  together  in  Chase’s  studio.  Du- 
veneck never  thought  his  own  picture  quite 
finished.  While  at  work  their  money  gave  out 
and  both  artists  were  hard  put  to  pay  the  little 
model  for  the  sittings.  The  works  of  the  other 
members  of  the  group  were  the  same  in  char- 
acter, inasmuch  as  they  revealed  a grasp,  a 
devotion  to  the  beauty  of  nature,  at  once  truth- 


38  FRANK  DUVENECK 

ful,  bold,  and  yet  how  fine  in  color  and  in  re- 
lation of  light  and  shadow.  Chase  showed  at 
the  Academy  his  much-discussed  picture  called 
“The  Man  with  the  Pipe,”  which  was  a por- 
trait of  Duveneck. 

One  of  the  prominent  New  York  papers  of 
the  year  1877  made  the  following  statement  as 
to  Duveneck’s  “Turkish  Page”:  “Here  at 
last  is  painting  for  painting’s  sake ; study  for 
youth’s  delight  in  study,  an  earnest  of  the  day 
when  our  artists  shall  be  bred  at  home  as  well 
as  born  at  home,  and  the  seal  of  a foreign 
school,  the  approval  of  a foreign  master,  shall 
no  longer  be  necessary  to  give  an  American 
a position  among  his  own  countrymen.  Ten 
years  with  such  a start  as  this  and  we  shall 
send  to  the  next  exposition  something  better 
than  sewing  machines  and  patent  cow  milkers; 
we  shall  send  pictures  and  statues  that  will 
not  be  shamed  by  being  set  alongside  the  work 
of  France  and  England.  American  artists  will 
find  at  home  that  atmosphere  which  for  many 


SKETCH  OF  A TURK 
1876 


In  richness  of  warm  color  and  admirable  breadth  of  statement  this 
canvas  ranks  among  those  of  Duveneck’s  strongest  period.  It  was 
Chase  who  one  day  picked  up  this  picturesque  figure  from  the  streets 
of  Munich  and,  knocking  on  Duveneck’s  door,  cried  to  him  : “ Come 
on  over,  I have  a Turk,  — the  real  thing.” 


SKETCH  OF  A TURK 
1876 


FRANK  DUVENBCK  41 

years  they  have  run  abroad  to  seek  and  which 
to  our  great  loss  too  many  of  them  have  found 
there.  The  Wests  and  Leslies,  the  Stewarts, 
Newtons,  Boughtons,  and  Whistlers  of  the 
future  will  be  content  to  breathe  their  native 
air  and  wear  home-grown  laurels,  nor  shall  we 
have  the  shame  of  disputing  with  foreigners 
over  our  right  to  call  our  fellow-countryman  a 
man,  who,  for  the  sake  of  foreign  employment, 
denies  his  American  birth  and  mispronounces 
his  own  name.” 


IV 


In  the  year  1878  Duveneck  started  a school 
in  Munich,  which  became  so  very  popular 
that  soon  two  classes  had  to  be  formed  of 
about  thirty  each,  one  of  Americans  and  Eng- 
lish, the  other  of  different  nationalities;  and 
when  the  desire  to  again  see  Italy  took  him 
back  to  Florence  at  the  end  of  the  following 
year  (1879)  fully  half  of  his  students  went  with 
him.  Thus  his  school  was  transplanted  to  the 
banks  of  the  Arno,  and  the  members  soon 
established  themselves  in  the  social  as  well  as 
the  artistic  circles  of  Florence  as  the  “ Duve- 
neck Boys.” 

A live  picture  of  this  earnest  but  exuberant 
group  is  given  in  W.  D.  Howells’  story  of 
Florentine  Life,  “ Indian  Summer,”  where  they 
are  called  the  “ Inglehart  Boys.”  The  breezy 
references  to  them  are  invested  with  a feeling 
of  interest  and  friendliness.  One  of  the  char- 


PORTRAIT  OF  J.  FRANK  CURRIER 
1876 


This  powerful  portrait  of  Currier,  one  of  the  American  personali- 
ties in  Munich  at  Duveneck’s  time  there,  deserves  to  be  better  known 
in  this  country.  Light  is  thrown  on  some  of  Currier’s  fervently 
dashed-off  impressions  by  the  spirit  of  the  eyes  as  we  note  them  in 
this  portrait. 


PORTRAIT  OF  J.  FRANK  CURRIER 
1876 


FRANK  DUVENECK 


45 

acters  introduces  them  thus : “ * They  were 
here  all  last  winter  and  they  ’ve  just  got  back. 
It  ’s  rather  exciting  for  Florence.’  She  gave  a 
rapid  sketch  of  the  interesting  exodus  of  a 
score  of  young  painters  from  an  art  school  at 
Munich  under  the  head  of  the  singular  and 
fascinating  genius  by  whose  name  they  be- 
came known.  ‘ They  had  their  own  school  for 
a while  in  Munich  and  then  they  all  came 
down  into  Italy  in  a body.  They  had  their  stu- 
dio things  with  them,  and  they  traveled  third 
class,  and  had  the  greatest  fun.  They  were  a 
sensation  in  Florence.  They  went  everywhere 
and  were  such  favorites.  I hope  they  are  go- 
ing to  stay.’”  Such  was  the  impression  of 
them  which  Howells  found  in  Florence  when 
he  went  there  the  year  after  they  had  dis- 
banded, and  it  should  be  remembered  that  the 
Florence  of  that  day  was  a rallying  place  for 
the  most  fascinating  people  of  Europe. 

The  “ Duveneck  Boys  ” stayed  together  for 
about  two  years  working  in  Florence  in  the 


46  FRANK  DUVENECK 

winter  and  in  Venice  in  the  summer.  Among 
them  were  John  W.  Alexander,  John  Twacht- 
man,  J oseph  DeCamp,  J ulius  Rolshoven,  Oliver 
Dennett  Grover,  Otto  Bacher,  Theodore  Wen- 
del,  Louis  Ritter,  Ross  Turner,  Harper  Pen- 
nington, Charles  Forbes,  George  E.  Hopkins, 
Julian  Story,  Charles  E.  Mills,  Albert  Rein- 
hart, Charles  H.  Freeman,  Henry  Rosenberg, 
John  O.  Anderson,  Charles  Abel  Corwin,  and 
others.  Oliver  Dennett  Grover,  the  youngest 
of  the  group,  in  speaking  about  his  colleagues 
said  that  the  advice  of  John  Twachtman,  of 
the  Cincinnati  contingent,  one  of  the  older 
ones,  whose  knowledge  was  wider,  was  ap- 
preciated next  to  that  of  the  “ Old  Man,”  as 
they  lovingly  denominated  Duveneck.  Then 
he  continued:  “Joseph  DeCamp  was  just 
plain  ‘Joe’  in  those  days,  the  breeziest,  cheek- 
iest, most  warm-hearted  Bohemian  in  Venice. 
Full  of  life,  energy,  and  ambition,  he  worked 
unceasingly  and  gave  and  took  many  a hard 
knock.  Rolshoven  too  was  endowed  by  nature 


RED-HAIRED  MAN  WITH  RUFF 
1876 


This  head  recalls  Rubens.  It  is  full  of  character,  strongly  con- 
structed, closely  drawn,  and  of  astonishing  luminosity.  The  brush- 
work  is  limpid. 


RED-HAIRED  MAN  WITH  RUFF 
1876 


FRANK  DUVENECK 


49 

with  the  artistic  temperament,  making  it  espe- 
cially difficult  for  him  to  adapt  himself  to  rou- 
tine work.  Alexander,  of  course,  was  the  born 
favorite  and  leader  which  he  continued  to  be 
throughout  his  life.  We  always  thought,  had 
Alexander  not  chosen  art  as  his  vocation,  he 
might  have  become  a great  diplomat.  I remem- 
ber him  at  the  last  annual  meeting  of  the  Na- 
tional Academy  of  Design  at  which  he  presided, 
and  during  the  little  while  I could  converse  with 
him  he  took  occasion  to  speak  of  student  days, 
and  to  voice  feelingly  his  sense  of  the  obliga- 
tion he  and  all  of  us  v/ere  under  to  Duveneck; 
incidentally,  also,  recalling  Sargent’s  beautiful 
estimate  of  him.  The  student  days  in  Italy 
were  all  too  short,  but  while  they  lasted  they 
were  more  significant,  probably,  than  a simi- 
lar period  in  the  lives  of  most  students,  because 
more  intensified,  more  concentrated.  The  usual 
student  experiences  of  work  and  play,  elation 
and  dejection,  feast  and  famine,  were  ours,  of 
course,  but  in  addition  to  that,  and  owing  to 


FRANK  DUVENECK 


50 

peculiar  circumstances  and  conditions,  the  ad- 
vantage of  the  intimate  association  and  con- 
stant companionship  we  enjoyed  not  only  with 
our  leader  but  also  with  his  acquaintances  and 
fellow  artists,  men  and  women  from  many 
lands,  was  unique  and  perhaps  quite  as  valu- 
able as  any  actual  school  work.  We  lived  in 
adjoining  rooms,  dined  in  the  same  restaurant, 
frequented  the  same  cafes,  worked  and  played 
together  with  an  intimacy  only  possible  to 
that  age  and  such  a community  of  interests.” 
The  inspiration  of  this  class  was  well  epito- 
mized by  Duveneck’s  old  professor,  Diez;  it 
was  “ Work.”  It  was  his  custom  at  the  begin- 
ning of  the  year  to  make  an  address  to  the  class, 
and  in  closing  his  talk  he  always  said:  “Now, 
I don’t  want  any  geniuses  in  this  class;  I don’t 
care  for  pupils  who  claim  an  abundance  of 
talent;  but  what  I do  want  is  a crowd  of  good 
workers.”  “ This  is  the  thought  I have  always 
tried  to  instil  into  my  pupils,”  says  Mr.  Duve- 
neck.  Mr.  Grover  told  me  once  at  the  time  of 


THE  COBBLER'S  APPRENTICE 
1877 


This  striking  life-size  canvas,  in  subject  so  like  “ The  Whistling 
Boy,”  is  yet  entirely  different.  Aside  from  the  fact  that  the  little 
model  for  the  earlier  work  had  black  hair  while  this  one’s  is  red,  the 
difference  in  technique  is  self-evident.  While  in  “ The  Whistling 
Boy  ” young  Duveneck  centered  all  of  his  attention  upon  the  head, 
conveying  planes  and  texture  with  remarkable  care  and  feeling,  this 
canvas  is  a more  broad  statement,  all  parts  of  it  being  boldly  and 
swiftly  expressed.  Certain  passages  in  it  make  one  think  of  Manet, 
yet  Duveneck  had  never  seen  any  of  the  French  master’s  works  at 
that  time.  The  canvas,  painted  in  Munich,  was  originally  sold  there 
for  twenty-five  dollars  to  Mr.  von  Hessling,  the  American  Vice- 
Consul,  was  for  a time  owned  by  Mr.  Joseph  Stransky,  and  is  now  in 
the  collection  of  Mr.  Charles  P.  Taft.  In  May  of  that  same  year 
(1877)  Duveneck  and  Chase  left  for  Venice,  Duveneck  stopping  in 
Innsbruck  where  he  painted  the  portrait  of  Susan  B.  Anthony. 


THE  COBBLER’S  APPRENTICE 
1877 


FRANK  DUVENECK 


53 

his  Duveneck  lecture  in  Chicago : “ His  clear- 
ness of  vision  and  surety  of  hand  were  simply 
masterly.  At  that  time  the  rarity  of  his  skill 
was  not  realized,  by  me  at  least.  In  my  inno- 
cence I imagined  a few  years  of  study  and 
training  would  give  one  a similar  certainty  and 
skill.  During  the  years  since  that  time  I have 
watched  the  work  of  many  painters,  some  of 
them  great  men,  but  for  the  quality  of  pure 
painter  ability  I have  never  known  his  equal.” 

Already  at  the  time  of  Duveneck’s  classes  in 
Italy,  it  was  the  brushwork  instead  of  the  care- 
fully finished  charcoal  or  crayon  drawing  that 
he  insisted  upon  with  his  pupils  as  the  real 
foundation  of  a picture ; he  imparted  the  paint- 
er’s rather  than  the  draughtsman’s  point  of 
view  in  teaching  the  student,  once  the  rough 
outlines  were  suggested  in  charcoal,  to  cover 
his  canvas  quickly  with  paint,  boldly  blocking 
in  the  large  masses. 

In  Florence,  Duveneck  found  it  hard  to  work 
himself,  owing  to  his  being  so  well  known,  in 


FRANK  DUVENECK 


54 

fact  — pursued,  as  would  appear  to  have  been 
the  case  from  Pennell’s  remark  in  his  book  on 
Whistler,  that  he  and  Whistler  used  to  run 
across  Duveneck  in  little  out-of-the-way  cafes, 
where  he  was  hiding  from  them.  This  lasted 
for  two  more  years  when  Duveneck  decided 
to  disband  his  class,  thinking  it  would  be  better 
for  his  group  of  really  fine  students  to  go  back 
to  Munich  or  Paris  on  account  of  the  oppor- 
tunity of  seeing  what  was  going  on  through 
exhibitions  and  the  like. 


PORTRAIT  OF  JOHN  W.  ALEXANDER 
1879 


Duveneck  took  Alexander  with  him  to  Florence  ahead  of  his  other 
pupils  to  help  him  find  the  right  kind  of  studios.  Once  that  task  was 
completed  and  while  waiting  for  the  class,  Duveneck  painted  this 
brilliant,  gentlemanly  portrait  of  young  Alexander  in  a few  hours. 


PORTRAIT  OF  JOHN  W.  ALEXANDER 
1879 


V 


In  1880  Duveneck  became  keenly  interested 
in  etching,  but  a visit  to  America  soon  inter- 
rupted this  work.  Returning  to  Venice  after 
about  a year  he  produced,  in  1883  and  1884,  some 
twenty  notable  plates.  Without  his  knowledge, 
in  1881,  Lady  Collin  Campbell  had  sent  his  three 
etchings  of  the  “ Rivadegli  Schiavoni,  Venice,” 
to  London,  for  the  first  exhibition  of  the  “ New 
Society  of  Painter-Etchers”  at  the  Hanover 
Gallery.  The  story  of  how  several  members  of 
that  society  suspected  that  they  were  the  works 
of  Whistler,  under  a nom  de  plume,  is  well 
known,  the  facts  having  been  put  on  record 
various  times  and  Whistler’s  witty  correspond- 
ence on  the  subject  being  included  in  “The 
Gentle  Art  of  Making  Enemies.”  In  this  con- 
nection Seymour  Haden  later  said  that  after 
seeing  the  etchings  there  was  absolutely  no 
doubt  with  him  as  to  their  originator ; that  he 


58  FRANK  DUVENECK 

could  not  help  but  feel  at  once  the  difference  of 
temperament  between  Whistler  and  Duveneck. 
Pennell  also  justly  says  in  his  book  on  Whis- 
tler that  it  is  incredible  that  two  etchers  like 
Haden  and  Legros  could  have  mistaken  the 
work  of  Duveneck  for  that  of  Whistler.  The 
difference  of  upbuilding,  of  technique,  and  of 
touch  certainly  to  us  to-day  appears  striking 
between  the  work  of  the  two  men.  Duveneck’s 
etchings  of  the  “ Riva  degli  Schiavoni  ” were 
made  before  Whistler  made  his ; in  fact  Otto  H. 
Bach er,  one  of  the  “Duveneck  Boys”  in  Venice, 
tells  us  in  his  book,  “ With  Whistler  in  Ven- 
ice,” that  Whistler  saw  these  etchings  as  Bacher 
was  helping  Duveneck  bite  the  plates,  and  that 
Whistler  said  with  characteristic  frankness: 
“Whistler  must  do  the  Riva  also.”  Haden 
wrote  to  Duveneck  at  the  time,  among  other 
things  about  these  etchings:  “ In  the  meantime 
I assure  you  your  works  are  the  admiration  of 
all  who  come  to  our  gallery.  Pray  do  not  stop 
your  work  in  this  direction;  we  shall  all  be 


WELL  AND  WATER-TANK,  ITALIAN  VILLA 

1887 

OLD  TOWN  BROOK,  POLLING,  BAVARIA 

1878 


Duveneck’s  color,  often  restrained  except  in  his  flesh  tints,  bursts 
forth  occasionally  in  his  landscapes  in  a surprisingly  luminous  man- 
ner. 


WELL  AND  WATER-TANK,  ITALIAN  VILLA 
1887 


OLD  TOWN  BROOK,  POLLING,  BAVARIA 
1878 


FRANK  DUVENECK  61 

much  interested  in  seeing  more  of  it  and  doing 
it  all  the  honor  we  can.” 

One  year  after  the  controversy  Duveneck 
showed  in  London  another  group  of  etchings 
which  again  attracted  much  interest,  Haden 
testifying  his  appreciation  by  buying  all  that  he 
could  get.  All  of  Duveneck’s  Italian  etchings 
convey  his  sense  of  architectural  richness  and 
with  that  the  simple  pictorial  bigness,  complete 
in  every  way,  that  characterizes  his  other  work. 
His  plates  are  superbly  conceived  and  mas- 
terly in  their  draughtsmanship.  The  plate  of 
the  “ Rialto  ” is  among  those  that  best  convey 
Duveneck’s  personal  force  of  conception  and 
touch.  Many  of  his  plates  have  unfortunately 
been  destroyed  or  lost  and  few  prints  are  in 
existence.  In  those  Venetian  days  Duveneck 
used  to  see  a good  deal  of  Whistler ; they  were 
always  friendly,  but  the  two  were  too  utterly 
unlike  for  the  friendship  to  go  beyond  a certain 
point. 

An  amusing  little  story  relates  to  this  time. 


62 


FRANK  DUVENECK 


Duveneck  and  De  Camp,  who  were  printing 
one  day,  were  sorely  in  need  of  paper.  They 
asked  Bacher  to  tell  them  where  he  got  his 
beautiful  handmade  paper.  Bacher  revealed 
the  secret  to  the  two  startled  artists  in  a whis- 
per. Doubtful  whether  he  was  merely  joking, 
they  nevertheless  set  out  gamely  for  the  mar- 
ket, where  to  their  satisfaction  they  did  find  the 
exquisite  paper  which  was  used  by  a couple  of 
women  to  wrap  up  butter.  Whistler,  who  also 
heard  about  this,  was  not  slow  in  laying  in  as 
much  of  a stock  of  the  paper  as  he  could  get. 

In  1886  Duveneck  was  married  to  Miss  Eliza- 
beth Boott,  of  Boston,  herself  a painter  of  dis- 
tinction. Miss  Boott  was  born  in  Boston,  and, 
having  lost  her  mother  while  still  a very  young 
child,  was  taken  by  her  father  to  Florence,  to 
live  with  two  of  her  aunts.  Later  she  went  to 
Paris  to  study  painting  with  Couture  and  lived 
with  his  family.  At  the  age  of  eighteen  she 
came  to  America  and  studied  with  William 


FLORENTINE  FLOWER  GIRL 
1887 


Bathed  in  the  sunshine  of  outdoors.  The  form  expression  and  the 
brush-work  reflect  the  influence  upon  him  of  the  modern  French 
painter's  point  of  view  and  method. 


- r, 


FLORENTINE  FLOWER  GIRL 
1887 


FRANK  DUVENECK  65 

Morris  Hunt,  who  had  been  a pupil  of  Couture 
before  falling  so  strongly  under  the  influence 
of  Millet.  About  this  time  Duveneck’s  one- 
man  show  was  held  in  Boston  and  was  greatly 
admired  by  Miss  Boott;  so  much  so  that  she 
induced  her  father  to  purchase  the  portrait  of 
Mr.  Adams,  which  is  now  in  the  Cincinnati 
Museum.  Duveneck’s  various  portraits  of  his 
wife  reveal  a character  refined,  womanly,  and 
at  the  same  time  marked  by  firmness,  and  this 
latter  quality  was  clearly  demonstrated  in  the 
present  instance.  Miss  Boott  determined  not 
only  to  own  the  portrait  of  Mr.  Adams,  but  to 
study  with  the  man  who  had  painted  it.  Ac- 
cordingly she  and  her  father  sought  out  Du- 
veneck  in  Munich  in  1879,  their  cab  drawing 
up  at  the  door  when  he  was  in  the  very  act  of 
closing  his  studio  to  go  to  Polling,  Bavaria. 
She  having  got  so  far,  it  is  not  remarkable 
that  the  young  artist’s  lack  of  enthusiasm  over 
teaching  a young  girl  should  have  been  over- 
come, so  he  advised  her  to  paint  for  a while  in 


66 


FRANK  DUVENECK 


Munich,  but  gladly  offered  to  criticise  her  work 
on  his  return.  The  sequel  to  this  story  was  their 
engagement  which,  however,  did  not  result  in 
marriage  until  nearly  seven  years  later.  They 
were  married  in  Paris  in  1886  and  spent  the 
two  brief  years  before  her  untimely  death,  in 
Florence,  in  a villa  on  the  crest  of  a hill  over- 
looking the  city.  She  died  in  Paris  and  lies 
buried  in  the  Allori  Cemetery  in  Florence, 
where  the  memorial  figure  in  bronze,  which 
Duveneck  created  for  it,  marks  the  spot.  A 
son,  Frank,  survives  her. 

Mrs.  Duveneck  possessed  great  talent.  Her 
water-colors  and  canvases,  among  them  pow- 
erful studies  of  figures  and  landscapes,  but 
chiefly  of  still  life,  place  her  without  effort 
among  artists  of  achievement. 


SIESTA 

1887 


Notice  the  superb  feeling  of  complete  rest.  The  understanding  of 
form,  the  realization  of  weight  are  too  evident  to  need  comment ; in 
color  the  painting  absolutely  glows.  The  canvas  was  painted  in  Flor- 
ence, the  model  being  the  same  as  of  the  “ Florentine  Flower  Girl.” 
The  picture  was  acquired  by  the  Queen  City  Club  of  Cincinnati. 


SIESTA 

1887 


VI 


Duveneck  returned  to  his  old  home,  Cin- 
cinnati, after  his  wife’s  death,  and  there  he 
has  since  lived.  From  this  time,  his  vitality 
went  less  into  his  own  work  and  more  into 
that  of  others,  yet  his  versatile  power  was 
demonstrated  when  he  made  the  superb  me- 
morial and  when,  with  the  cooperation  of 
Clement  J.  Barnhcrn,  he  made  the  statue  of 
Emerson,  now  in  Emerson  Hall  at  Harvard. 
The  bust  portrait  of  Dr.  Charles  W.  Eliot 
also  belongs  to  that  time.  In  the  spring  of 
1894  Duveneck  spent  two  months  in  Spain. 
Most  of  his  time  there  was  occupied  in  the 
Prado,  where  he  copied  Velasquez,  the  works 
he  chose  being  the  “ Portrait  of  the  In- 
fanta Margarita,”  the  “Equestrian  Portrait  of 
Prince  D.  Baltasar  Carlos,”  “ Portrait  of  King 
Philip  IV,  in  a Hunting  Suit,”  “ Portrait  of 
King  Philip  IV,  of  Advanced  Age,”  and  “The 


FRANK  DUVENECK 


70 

Idiot  of  Coria.”  His  latest  work  of  importance 
in  painting  was  an  immense  mural  decoration, 
started  in  1904  and  completed  in  1909.  It  was 
given  in  memory  of  his  mother  to  St.  Mary’s 
Cathedral  in  Covington,  Kentucky. 

The  most  comprehensive  exhibition,  outside 
of  Cincinnati,  ever  made  of  Duveneck’s  work 
was,  as  I have  indicated,  his  one-man  gallery 
at  the  San  Francisco  Exposition  in  1915.  It 
included  thirty  oil  paintings,  twelve  Venetian 
and  one  Florentine  etching,  and  a replica  of 
the  Memorial.  This  replica  was  taken  from 
the  marble  copy  in  the  Boston  Museum  of 
Fine  Arts.  In  the  group  of  paintings  was  one 
of  the  earliest  Munich  canvases.  It  was  a por- 
trait of  a man  with  a red  fez,  its  quiet,  forceful 
grasp  of  character  arousing  at  once  a good 
deal  of  discussion  among  Munich  artists.  The 
most  important  document  of  that  time,  “ The 
Old  Schoolmaster,”  painted  in  1871,  was  not 
included  in  that  collection.  It  was  exhibited 
in  Boston  in  1875,  and  sold  for  one  hundred 


RIVA  DEGLI  SCHIAVONI,  VENICE 
1880 


Duveneck’s  etchings  are  of  the  same  breadth  and  vigor  as  his 
paintings.  For  him  “ The  Riva  ” is  one  of  unusual  delicacy. 


RIVA  DEGLI  SCHIAVONI,  VENICE 
1880 


FRANK  DUVENECK  73 

dollars  to  Dr.  Angel,  an  art  connoisseur,  and 
was  owned  until  recently  by  his  v/idow,  who 
has  just  presented  the  work  to  the  Boston  Mu- 
seum of  Fine  Arts.  In  speaking  of  the  portrait 
of  this  old  Munich  teacher  from  the  Old  Man’s 
Home  there,  the  “Boston  Transcript”  of  1875 
said:  “The  portrait  is  that  of  an  elderly  man 
who  might  be  an  antiquated  fiddler  in  a Ger- 
man orchestra.  Only  the  head  and  breast  are 
there,  the  coat  being  closely  buttoned.  The 
coloring  is  well-nigh  perfection,  every  feature 
of  age  being  elaborated  with  most  vigorous 
effect.”  The  “ Nation  ” of  the  same  year  speaks 
of  the  relief,  the  vigor,  the  frankness,  and  com- 
prehensive simplicity,  qualities  in  it  which  are 
most  striking.  A woodcut  of  this  canvas  was 
made  by  a Mr.  Juengling,  and  proved  a prize- 
winner among  woodcuts  in  1880. 

The  “ Whistling  Boy  ” belongs  to  the  year 
1872.  The  magic  dexterity  of  the  brush  as  dis- 
played here,  the  power  of  perception,  the  nat- 
ural expression  and  rich  coloring  remain  amaz- 


74  FRANK  DUVENECK 

ing  to  us  to  this  very  day.  “Put  it  down,”  was 
the  precept  Duveneck  always  had  ready  for  his 
pupils ; how  completely  he  realized  its  meaning 
in  the  painting  of  this  urchin,  a masterpiece  by 
a young  man  barely  twenty-four  years  old  ! 

In  the  “Woman  with  a Fan,”  which  belongs 
to  the  following  year,  the  dignity  of  arrange- 
ment, but  especially  the  study  of  the  head,  its 
soft  flesh  colors  and  texture,  with  the  only  two 
strongly  defined  accents,  the  dark  eyes,  is  truly 
superb.  This  was  one  of  the  portraits  sold  orig- 
inally for  three  hundred  dollars  from  his  Boston 
exhibition.  The  same  year  he  painted  the  por- 
trait of  Loefftz.  Anybody,  but  especially  those 
who  paint  themselves,  will  find  it  hard  to  be- 
lieve that  while  there  may  have  been  some  pre- 
vious preparation  of  the  canvas,  this  beautifully 
complete  piece  of  painting  was  done  in  one 
sitting,  lasting  all  day  and  to  the  point  of  ex- 
haustion of  both  painter  and  sitter.  This  was 
one  of  the  portraits  that  the  German  Govern- 
ment indirectly  tried  to  buy  for  the  National 


THE  RIALTO,  VENICE 
1883 


Characteristic  of  the  breadth  and  dignity  of  Duveneck’s  whole  se- 
ries of  Italian  etchings. 


THE  RIALTO,  VENICE 
1883 


FRANK  DUVENECK  77 

Gallery  in  Berlin,  but  was  not  able  to  get.  There 
are  many  portraits  of  this  first  Munich  period 
of  Duveneck’s  that  he  has  lost  track  of.  He  used 
to  paint  anybody  then  who  came  along  and  put 
twenty  marks  down  on  the  table.  The  “ Un- 
finished Portrait  Study  ” of  a girl’s  head,  belong- 
ing  to  the  same  year,  1873,  is  interesting  not 
only  as  a piece  of  superb  painting,  but  because 
of  important  associations.  It  was  painted  in 
Munich,  in  1873,  the  year  of  the  cholera,  of 
which  Wilhelm  von  Kaulbach,the  official  head 
of  the  Royal  Academy,  was  one  of  the  victims. 
The  sketch  of  this  girl  was  the  work  of  a couple 
of  hours.  The  model  was  supposed  to  come 
back  the  next  day,  but  when  Duveneck  arrived 
for  his  sitting  he  was  informed  that  she  had  died 
during  the  night  of  the  cholera.  I dare  say,  in 
regard  to  the  depth  of  expression  in  this  head, 
that  if  the  imagination  were  given  rein  it  would 
seem  as  though  the  artist  must  have  been 
spurred  by  some  sense  of  her  impending  fate, 
or  as  though  in  her  that  quickened  spiritual 


78  FRANK  DUVENECK 

life  — which  sometimes  indicates  approach- 
ing death  — was  wide  awake  and  looking  out. 
Dietz  was  so  delighted  with  the  sketch  that 
Duveneck  gave  it  to  him.  But  it  marked  the 
close  of  his  stay  in  Munich,  for  he  immediately 
left  for  America. 

The  portrait  of  Frank  Currier  belongs  to  the 
Art  Institute  in  Chicago.  The  expression  of  this 
intensely  interesting  painter  is  one  of  strong 
intellectual  life  and  power,  making  us  easily 
see  the  creator  of  his  imposing  “ Approaching 
Storm”  in  the  Cincinnati  Museum.  In  1874  the 
portrait  of  Mr.  Adams  was  painted  in  Cincin- 
nati. It  is  about  the  finest  of  his  documents 
of  that  year.  To  1875  belongs  “The  Turkish 
Page.”  The  intensely  alive  portrait  of  John 
W.  Alexander  comes  several  years  later.  The 
two  paintings  by  Duveneck  in  the  Boston  Tav- 
ern Club  were  originally  given  to  Vinton,  the 
artist  and  art  critic,  who  lent  them  and  after- 
wards gave  them  to  the  club.  One  is  a three- 
quarters  length  portrait  of  John  Landis,  a 


MEMORIAL  TO  ELIZABETH  BOOTT 
DUVENECK 
1891 


The  original  model,  made  in  Cincinnati,  is  the  property  of  the  Mu- 
seum. The  photograph  shows  the  bronze  copy  installed  on  her  grave 
in  the  “ Campo  Santo  degli  Allori  ” in  Florence,  the  cemetery  in 
which  Arnold  Bocklin  rests. 

The  Memorial  was  exhibited  in  the  Paris  Salon  of  1895  and  awarded 
then  an  “ Honorable  Mention.” 

There  is  a marble  copy  in  the  Boston  Museum  of  Fine  Arts,  and 
copies  from  the  marble  are  owned  by  the  Pennsylvania  Academy  of 
Fine  Arts,  the  Chicago  Art  Institute,  and  the  San  Francisco  Art 
Association.  Copies  from  the  original  model  are  in  the  Metropolitan 
Museum,  New  York,  and  the  John  Herron  Art  Institute,  Indianapolis. 


MEMORIAL  TO  ELIZABETH  BOOTT  DUVENECK 

1891 


FRANK  DUVENECK  81 

fellow  artist  of  Duveneck’s,  whom  the  latter 
painted  several  times.  The  other  work  is  the 
spirited  sketch  of  a Turk,  garbed  in  a rich  yel- 
low tunic. 

As  a permanent  representation  of  an  artist, 
the  Duveneck  collection  in  the  Cincinnati  Mu- 
seum is  unique.  It  comprises  about  one  hun- 
dred paintings  besides  sculpture  and  etchings 
and  gives  a complete  account  of  his  personal- 
ity. In  the  spring  of  1915  he  established  and 
presented  as  a gift  to  the  Museum  this  whole 
collection,  together  with  a great  number  of  im- 
portant works  by  other  artists;  in  fact,  we  may 
say  his  entire  private  collection.  This  gift  was 
made,  to  use  his  own  words,  “for  the  benefit 
particularly  of  students  of  art  in  Cincinnati.” 

Duveneck  has  now  for  many  years  divided 
his  time  between  teaching,  painting,  and  ad- 
vising in  all  artistic  matters  of  importance 
in  connection  with  the  Cincinnati  Museum. 
Though  Duveneck  has  received  a number  of 


82 


FRANK  DUVENECK 


honors  and  medals,  he  has  little  to  say  of 
them.  We  know,  however,  that  he  is  a member 
of  the  American  Institute  of  Arts  and  Letters 
and  the  National  Academy. 

A typical  example  of  Duveneck’s  naive  way  of 
doing  things  is  well  illustrated  in  the  following 
incident.  After  painting  a canvas  of  “Glouces- 
ter Docks,”  in  the  summer  of  1915,  he  was 
offered  fifteen  hundred  dollars  for  it  by  some 
one  who  saw  it  there.  “No,”  said  Duveneck, 
“ I Ve  got  to  take  that  home  to  the  boys  and 
show  them  that  I Ve  been  working.”  He  ex- 
hibited it  in  Cincinnati  at  the  Art  Club  Exhibi- 
tion, and  for  the  sake  of  the  commission,  which 
would  benefit  the  Club,  he  put  a price  of  only 
eight  hundred  dollars  on  it.  The  picture  was 
immediately  sold  to  the  University  Club.  At 
once  Duveneck  turned  around  and  himself 
bought  several  of  the  larger  canvases  in  the 
exhibition,  donating  them  to  one  of  the  high 
schools  in  Cincinnati. 

I will  also  quote  Mrs.  Elizabeth  Robins  Pen- 


[Facsimile  of  the  Letter  adopted  first  by  the  Foreign  Members 
of  the  Jury  for  the  Panama- Pacific  International  Exposition  and 
later  endorsed  by  the  Entire  American  Jury.] 

Panama- Pacific  International  Exposition 

1915 


PALACB  OF  FINB  ABT9 

DIVISION  OF  EXHIBITS 
OrncE  of  the  Chief 
DEPARTMENT  OF 
FINE  ARTS 

June  2,  1915* 


San  Francisco, 
Cujtouru. 


Chairman:  Deportment  Jury, 

Department  of  Fine  Arte  , 

Dear  Sir:- 


V/e,  the  representatives  of  foreign  countries 
acting  upon  the  International  Jury  of  Awards  in  the 
Department  of  Fine  Art 3,  do  hereby  ask  your  kind  con- 
sideration of  the  following  recommendation  unaraioualy 
adopted  by  us  in  a meeting  specially  called  for  thia 
purpoae , 


'./hereaa,  the  comprehensive  retrospective 
collection  of  Mr . Frank  IXiveneck*a  works  in  oils, 
etching  and  sculpture  brought  together  here  haa  un- 
questionably proven  to  be  the  real  surprise  of  the  whole 
American  Section  in  the  Palace  of  Fine  Arts,  and,  whereas, 
these  works  have  astonished  and  delighted  all  those 
hitherto  unacquainted  with  his  life  work,  while  confirming 
the  opinion  of  those  few  who  have  long  held  him  in  the 
highest  esteem,  both  as  an  artist  and  as  a man,  we,  the 
foreign  jurors  on  the  International  Jury  of  Award,  feel 
that  some  special  recognition  of  his  distinguished 
contribution  to  American  art  should  be  awarded  Mr,  Frank 
Duveneck,  and  we  herewith  recommend  that  a Special  Medal 
of  Honor  be  struck  in  his  hionor  and  awarded  him. 


We  beg  to  remain, 

Very  respectfully, 


FRANK  DUVENECK  83 

nell’s  vivid  picture  of  Duveneck’s  personal  ap- 
pearance in  her  book,  “ Nights,”  because  it 
must  be  real,  since,  except  for  his  now  gray 
hair  and  less  drooping  mustache,  he  has  re- 
mained the  same  quiet,  easy-going  giant  dur- 
ing all  these  years.  Mrs.  Pennell  says  in  the 
Venetian  chapter : “ Duveneck,  as  I remember 
him  then,  was  large,  fair,  golden-haired,  with 
long  drooping  mustache,  of  a type  apt  to  suggest 
indolence  and  indifference.  As  he  lolled  against 
the  red  velvet  cushions  smoking  his  Cavour, 
enjoying  the  talk  of  others  as  much  as  his  own, 
or  more,  for  he  had  the  talent  of  eloquent  si- 
lence when  he  chose  to  cultivate  it,  — his  eyes 
half  shut,  smiling  with  casual  benevolence,  he 
may  have  looked  to  a stranger  incapable  of 
action  and  as  if  he  did  not  know  whether  he 
was  alone  or  not,  and  cared  less.  And  yet  he 
had  a big  record  of  activity  behind  him,  young 
as  he  was ; he  always  inspired  activity  in  oth- 
ers, he  was  rarely  without  a large  and  devoted 
following.  . . .” 


84  FRANK  DUVENECK 

And  he  never  has  been  without  a devoted 
following.  The  artists  and  connoisseurs  of  his 
own  generation  have  continued  to  do  him 
honor.  His  pupils,  old  and  new,  in  Cincinnati 
or  wherever  they  may  be,  are  included  in  what 
he  likes  to  call  “his  Family.”  Of  late  years  he 
has  traveled  very  little,  seldom  leaving  his 
Cincinnati  studio  and  his  home  in  Covington 
for  any  great  length  of  time.  His  closest  ar- 
tistic companions,  since  he  became  head  of  the 
faculty  of  the  Cincinnati  Art  Academy  in  1900, 
have  been  his  co-workers,  particularly  his  inti- 
mate friends  of  long  standing,  Clement  J.  Barn- 
horn  and  the  late  E.  H.  Meakin,  their  studios 
having  been  together  in  the  Museum,  and 
their  joint  labors  spent  in  developing  its  col- 
lections. 


CAMBRIDGE  . MASSACHUSETTS 


U . S . A 


i 


I 


GETTY  CENTER  LIBRARY 


3 3125  00752  1491 


